brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Reception of Brickipedia
Hello everybody, lately I was wondering how Brickipedia is received in the online Lego community. How do the people see our project? Do they use it regularly or do they prefer other pages, and why? Do they even know that Brickipedia exists? And how to they rate our quality? Perhaps some Brickipedians who are also members in other Lego communities (Eurobricks, Mocpages etc.) can ask around on their forums to shed some light on these questions. Anybody interested? -- 11:38, December 24, 2009 (UTC) Reports :Interested in conducting a survey on other communities? Post here. Opinions :Well, apparently people from Bricklink won't join because of me Kingcjc 12:18, December 24, 2009 (UTC) ::Lol Kingcjc =.= --Lcawte 12:20, December 24, 2009 (UTC) :::When I think of this, I actually wonder myself: What's so special about Brickipedia? Peeron has inventories, Eurobricks has more images on 2010 sets, etc. Well, we need to change something here to make it as though we are a real encyclopedia on LEGO, with facts, details, and images people would never know about LEGO or sets. -[[User:Nerfblasterpro|'Nerf']][[User talk:Nerfblasterpro|'blasterpro: ']][[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'It's Nerf, or Nothing!']] 13:37, December 26, 2009 (UTC) ::::We need an improvement plan: something original that no one else has. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 14:02, December 26, 2009 (UTC) "What's so special about Brickipedia?" Well, I don't remember any easily navigable website with # detailed descriptions of a set and its functions (there are detailed descriptions in the reviews on Eurobricks, but these are hard to navigate, and other databases just provide images) # lists to related sets (6348 Surveillance Squad points out similar sets and links to them, I haven't seen anything like that on any other database) # articles about in-universe stuff that emcompasses several sets and themes (e.g. LEGO Coast Guard describes the history of this organization, something that can't be found anywhere on the web) # lists of sets of a similar subject that do not belong to the same theme (e.g. Police and Firefighters list all sets with police and firefighter appearances (respectively), databases sort sets only after the theme they appeared in) # tons of interesting annotations, which every user can also add himself without the need to join a community a platform like Brickipedia provides more possibilities than databases (easily editable annotations and lists that are not limited to themes) or forum reviews (standardized articles with neutral text with encyclopedic standard). (A lot of past featured articles have pathetic quality, but as soon as the new FA scheme takes effect we have more possibilities to showcase our top stuff.) -- When people come to this wiki and they see the immature comments left by admins in jest you should not wonder why they don't contribute and do not come back .I pointed out an error a user made and was appalled at the response of you as an admin , then other users came on board to point and ridicule as well , That is pathetic ,I am fully aware that being children you may think certain things are funny, but when I review what I said and then the response by members to this, Not only does it equate to immaturity but it does indeed send the message that you'd be wasting time offering any help what so ever to this site . I would point out that other admins had their say also about what they perceive as the rules of copywrite litigation, not only were the comments wrong in regard to the issue but once again sends the wrong message to any child who would happen to read it and think they are safe somehow to upload what ever they choose to. I suggest you define the rules in no uncertain terms by pointing to pages that outline the legalities, and not just say what you think. Clean up your act because if you want to attract people to your wiki you must at all times remain civil not antagonise users and don't feed them misinformation. You don't see this kind or aggression on any other database but the wiki's. When people do start to disagree for whatever reason disregarding who is mearly defending themselves is not recommended this again causes angst among users and sets a bad precedent. Warnings if they must be handed out need to be defined as what the situation has developed into and what must happen in future, Text regarding any arguments should be removed once the warning has been read. You don't want visitors to the site reading garbage tells rather than good news about Lego. As a member of most if not all Lego site's on the web, Brikipedia is in the unique position of being able to arrange its database in a much more detailed and informative way. For a start those in control should change the voting procedures to simply a yes or no. Also once someone adds their opinion about something/anything it should not be challenged, users can simply add their opposing view if need be but this should not be on the same page that one would vote. Emphasis should remain on the database and not changing colors or adding little pics for collectors , this only amounts to time spend on trivial things that lend themselves to unproductive time spent rather then construction. I noticed today a header had been added which warns against adding confidential images, the wording could be a little more appealing, but then I see many images of the new Kingdoms line due in 2010. Adding a warning like this needs to be backed up by you removing the offending images and or text. Defining what is Brikipedia and what it is not is fine, but policing of the site is what is needed to back up your own rules. As for the database going from set to set year to year and related sets is easy enough , but there needs to be a site map easy identifiable that will lead you to lists of themes, years ect ect.. Navigation is the most important thing and once the database becomes larger and larger the type of navigation in place now is limited to say the least. Several types of site maps will be needed besides a main one that lists all types of pages, these maps should be accessible from all pages. Details on the main pages of users highlighting the most edited pages over the last few days is not really needed and could be placed elsewhere. More emphasis should be place on the visitor and easier navigation the editors tab on the left is useless to any visitor and while being related to the users of the site its not Lego related , and anything not Lego related should not really be seen on every page. The list of recent themes should be expanded to include not only new themes but all ongoing themes . The overview linking to a page about Brikipedia is not needed, Any who arrive at this wiki are going to know what its about , and highlighting vandalism and a couple of admins in the first few paragraphs is again pointless, this sort of thing where you want to highlight users is not needed to be linked to the front page , A link at the bottom of the page to a list of admins would suffice . What is needed on the front page is only links to information about Lego . Do many people want to read about vandalism when they visit a Lego wiki ? probably not, again the emphasis should be place on the visitors view and related to Lego and not users/editors. The did you know section is a great idea and a good lead into surfing the Lego wiki, but these facts should be checked. When I first read the article about Castle I found an obvious error, although I did alert an admin to the err, which he/she fixed. Mistakes on the leading page of a encyclopedia does not lead one to want to delve deeper into it. Other mistakes regarding sets that are not sets after being pointed out were ignored and the pages remain. One should not take my word for it but a little research goes a long way. The 'In the News' should have links to the source of the news where possible and not just the wiki page about the relevant set ect.. Regarding the pages for sets, Highlighting in text what can be seen in the picture for the set is fine, but what about an opinion ? reviews of sets on the discussion pages or where-ever would be a good addition, every one wants to know about new sets coming up and those who have the sets are in a position to do so. This wiki is said to be an encyclopedia but for better or worse thats not what most of them are. Finally , there may be people out there that know a lot more about the subject than you .I suggest those of you in a position to direct this wiki down a path of popularity read a little about how to structure and most of all administer without bias or opinions . Encyclopedias are full of facts, verifiable and correct, very few of the pages are solely to praise oneself. I could go on for several more paragraphs outlining sentence and paragraph structure, I fear it would be a waste of my time (Especially as I don't adhere to the rules myself when I'm not getting paid ) except to add one golden rule for all textual arrangements; Less is More . What I have written is my opinion , you need not reply to any factual errors, nor add your opinion about my post or me, or anything else related to this post. As I wont be reading it. Gladiatoring 13:52, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :Atleast get your grammer right and you add to the bottom of the page! Shesh!! Ok... anybody bothered to read that mass of text? --Lcawte 14:11, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::I did. For some reason I get the feeling you don't like Gladiatoring, Lcawte. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 15:50, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :::GG, you could say that.... :P --Lcawte 19:20, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :Massive Text wall :/ anyone want to summarise? Kingcjc 20:40, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, read it and shall answer ever single thing here step by step: " am fully aware that being children you may think certain things are funny" - once again, im not a child :). "For a start those in control should change the voting procedures to simply a yes or no" - that is what for and against is... "Adding a warning like this needs to be backed up by you removing the offending images and or text" - sorry but at Christmas I didn't sit here going through images. "When I first read the article about Castle I found an obvious error, although I did alert an admin to the err, which he/she fixed. Mistakes on the leading page of a encyclopedia does not lead one to want to delve deeper into it." - be BOLD and remove and mistakes you see. " Other mistakes regarding sets that are not sets after being pointed out were ignored and the pages remain. One should not take my word for it but a little research goes a long way" - link? not every page is read by admins, especially when Lcawtes bot makes 200 edits a day :P "Highlighting in text what can be seen in the picture for the set is fine, but what about an opinion ?" - Neutral point of view =/= opinion "except to add one golden rule for all textual arrangements; Less is More ." - this after the longest text wall I have ever seen on a wiki :P. "What I have written is my opinion , you need not reply to any factual errors, nor add your opinion about my post or me, or anything else related to this post. As I wont be reading it" - >_>. Improvement theme - good idea, gives more scope and areas that people can improve Kingcjc 21:31, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::We just need more editors --> More Pages, More Info ---> More users because they got interested ---> more pages,....That's How I see it. [[User:Sparky!|''Sparky]] :::There are some small wikis based on what we do. I could find any active users and bring theme here. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ]][[User talk:GameGear360|'''360]] 13:20, December 28, 2009 (UTC) : Well from the mention I've seen over at Eurobricks, there have been whole forums started over fake lists which have been inserted here, and then about 3 pages of complaining about wikis. And there are the usual comments of "never trust wikis", etc, Though they have a right to say this when some vandalism does appear to leak through on here. But there have also been a few links to here from there in posts, and I vaguely remember seeing one comment saying it's good to see we're keeping up with the news (when I think it was who put in a few images into the August 2010 Star Wars sets. were confidential images, and the rule here now is to not allow these images and have since been removed, but it was refreshing to see that comment). I believe some of the points raised above are very good ones however- we do need to put in sources wherever we can so it can be verified, and I agree with the "did you know..." section needing complete sourcing at the end of each fact- this especially does need verifying. Also, reviews could also be a good idea here, I'm not really sure though. They could be subpages of the set and links could be on the set page. But I think there would need to be a limit to the number of reviews per set, and that could lead to some problems. Or, maybe we could use the user blogs for set reviews? Also, I do have to agree with Brickipedia:About- I don't know if new users (who the page should really be for) want to read about disputes we've had in the past and the history of admin elections- it may be read by some as "welcome! we've had a lot of fights here, come join us!". Well, probably not that extreme though :) And I know NBP put a lot of work into this page and don't mean to citicize it at all or anything, I think it would be ok to have somewhere else, somewhere where more experienced users can read about things if they want to. But if you take a look at Wookieepedia:About, it's just a short and simple article giving a brief overview of the site. Maybe we could have a separate page, and put it in the About page under "Further reading". I don't know what anyone else thinks about this, I could be on my own on this one. Anyway, sorry I somehow missed this forum, and sorry about the text wall :) 02:10, January 17, 2010 (UTC) Ideas for improvements :::I got an idea. How about widening out Improvement Drive so we don't improve one set or article, we improve a whole theme instead! We can search the web or at home for some information nobody knows of, so we improve the quality of Brickipedia. 16:47, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::Good idea. 'Improvement Theme of the week' sounds good. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 17:17, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::Seconded, I already had this idea myself but never bothered to mention it. -- 17:18, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :::::I always bother to mention something. :P Anyway, vote on that or just take it? 17:27, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::::How about "Improvement theme of the Week" and also have up to 5 smaller articles we improve at the same time as part of it? 18:16, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Each successful theme gets improvement on it's page, sets, and created sets (if not already). Nobody uses the ID so just move it to this new one. Shall we set up a vote? [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 19:15, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Yup, I think so. 14:18, December 28, 2009 (UTC)